tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.comments2016-12-05T00:56:39.572-08:00Larry Masinter MusingsLarry Masinterhttps://plus.google.com/106838758956333672633noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-85851604111702092992014-11-26T09:52:10.553-08:002014-11-26T09:52:10.553-08:00I was waiting until I had written at least the sec...I was waiting until I had written at least the second installment before engaging you on this subject, but you&#39;re forcing my hand... here&#39;s what I wrote: <br /><br />http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/specifying-meaning/<br /><br />You may or may not recognize it as being about the same problems, as I&#39;m being quite a bit more oblique than you. But I am struggling with challenges you pose.<br /><br />(this is Jonathan in case my name doesn&#39;t come up)odontomachushttp://odontomachus.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-39941803887567280462014-11-20T17:01:10.000-08:002014-11-20T17:01:10.000-08:00Karl, I have another take on motivation (&quot;why...Karl, I have another take on motivation (&quot;why&quot;) but i don&#39;t think we need to ask &quot;why do we trust&quot;.<br /><br />Trust isn&#39;t binary (or transitive). I&#39;m using &#39;trust&#39; in terms of a receiver of an assertion trusting the source, and want to use some other word for &quot;belief in memory of previous belief&quot;.<br /><br />When you wake up in the morning, you today tend to believe things you believed before. <br /><br />&quot;rely on this information&quot; -- I want to recast this as &quot;believe the assertion with tenacity&quot;. <br /><br />&quot;can rely&quot; becomes &quot;if I act as if this assertion is true, that won&#39;t cause me too much trouble&quot;<br /><br />I want to avoid judgments like &quot;beneficial&quot; and &quot;good&quot; along with motivation. <br /><br />Science is study using &quot;scientific method&quot; to try to separate evidence of correlation from evidence of causality. All models are imperfect. Science is prediction.<br /><br />History is a story we tell to help ourselves understand and predict. If there were something like &quot;truth&quot;, it would take as much entropy to represent as the reality it is trying to describe.<br /><br />So any assertion, because of intrinsic ambiguity and limits on bandwidth, anything said is only partly true, partly false. <br /><br />Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-90211668981069179082014-11-20T14:43:41.931-08:002014-11-20T14:43:41.931-08:00Trust is indeed a very interesting part of it. You...Trust is indeed a very interesting part of it. You said &quot;Trust is a measure of influence: your speech acts that look like statements influence my beliefs about the world insofar as I trust you.&quot;<br /><br />I also consider Trust through its secondary effect as an accelerator. Basically, we trust because we need to be faster. It&#39;s a shortcut mechanism. We could imagine a (absurd) world where nothing is being trusted. And since your first morning you need to question everything, every single bits of your actions and your thoughts. Basically we would be put on stop. So we decide to trust because we know/understand that it will be faster, often these go through contracts (explicit or implicit). The person A tells me that if I do this I will get that, I decide that I can indeed rely on this information because many people told me that this person A is trusted by themselves (influence by others) or because I have a long record of history that some actions have always the same results (consistency).<br /><br />In our models, we have a tendency to map what we see as beneficial properties of the good (what you call truth), but very rarely what we don&#39;t like but are good for helping us to infere more things down the road. In Sciences, it would be, you accept the imperfect model of the world, because you know it will help you further down the road. It&#39;s not that you trust the model, it&#39;s just that you know it will help to set up a world **good enough** for making progress. The same way you will lie to someone to help this person to go further (death of someone, Santa Claus, etc. etc.). It&#39;s why ambiguity is so much more powerful than 0/1. karlhttp://www.la-grange.net/karl/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-28734193920073814902013-09-24T18:24:28.300-07:002013-09-24T18:24:28.300-07:00Whenever there are two groups and two specs with t...Whenever there are two groups and two specs with two sets of rules and authority, the risk of unneeded divergence is greatly increased. I&#39;ve seen it happen over and over, and saying there is no risk is a good warning sign. Good intentions aren&#39;t enough.Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-30613546752669716632013-09-21T22:23:53.285-07:002013-09-21T22:23:53.285-07:00Re, forking: there is no risk here. The same peopl...Re, forking: there is no risk here. The same people and team working on SPDY are also working on HTTP 2.0. When HTTP 2.0 is production ready, the switch will be made -- fwiw, SPDY v4 will likely be the last release before this switch happens.Ilya Grigorikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05841704909692378049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-71035236401019548892013-09-17T20:48:00.682-07:002013-09-17T20:48:00.682-07:00A thoughtful outline of valid concerns.A thoughtful outline of valid concerns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-4857187169836928882013-09-16T10:38:21.794-07:002013-09-16T10:38:21.794-07:00Correction: &quot;JavaScript libraries&quot; inste...Correction: &quot;JavaScript libraries&quot; instead of &quot;java libraries&quot; ಠ_ಠŠime Vidashttp://webplatformdaily.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-39342564344074756952013-05-18T11:18:48.384-07:002013-05-18T11:18:48.384-07:00(At my instigation) Barry Leiba noted the agreemen...(At my instigation) Barry Leiba noted the agreement in the IETF JSON working group charter:<br /><br />http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00267.html<br />Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-5611851207441995752013-04-04T11:35:21.567-07:002013-04-04T11:35:21.567-07:00While IETF and ECMA management continue to figure ...While IETF and ECMA management continue to figure out how to coordinate, what is necessary (and sufficient) is to produce an IETF document that ECMAScript 6 can reference, and then removing the JSON grammar from http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts section 15.2.Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-18766044013508148592013-03-28T08:38:28.119-07:002013-03-28T08:38:28.119-07:00Leigh - you _might_ talk the IETF into thinking th...Leigh - you _might_ talk the IETF into thinking that schemas for everything (or at least for some things) is a good idea, but I doubt you&#39;ll get much traction from the JSON community.<br /><br />Remember, the JSON folks found very very different lessons in XML and XML Schema history. They didn&#39;t just stumble into different or bad ideas, they made those choices with substantial awareness of the options. Not only that, but there are few signs that they are repenting of those choices.<br /><br />I&#39;ve spent too much time on the xml-dev list lately explaining why schema-first is a bad idea, and seeing you propose inflicting that model on a field that has largely rejected it is, well, strange.Simon St.Laurenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11163917784332691794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-17606174017144199462013-03-27T07:30:43.739-07:002013-03-27T07:30:43.739-07:00+1 on all accounts+1 on all accountsGunnar Djurberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00766735613568631672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-38349718298211372382013-03-26T15:35:45.011-07:002013-03-26T15:35:45.011-07:00+1 for a single specification for JSON.+1 for a single specification for JSON.Doug Cuttinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17556364956409186372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-25178354499069095712013-03-26T10:47:12.189-07:002013-03-26T10:47:12.189-07:00For those wondering what needs to be done to stand...For those wondering what needs to be done to standardize JSON, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/current/msg00193.html <br />Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-43095816601193017522013-03-25T10:15:07.089-07:002013-03-25T10:15:07.089-07:00Although the concept of validation may be antithet...Although the concept of validation may be antithetical to many JSON adherents, it is critical for interoperable processes. <br /><br />Looking back now at the XML Schema wars, I feel confident I can say that <br />1. everybody can live with W3C XML Schema Data Types, <br />2. Relax NG is easier to write and better at validating loosely-coupled systems, <br />3. W3C XML Schema Structures is better at describing XML structure that is designed to be compiled into code accessors (C#, Java) for more strongly coupled RPC-type systems.<br /><br />I feel that the various JSON schema proposals are all ignoring these and other lessons of the XML Schema history. I believe that a clear differentiation among the schema roles is necessary to come up with answers that satisfy the various use cases. <br /><br />The current approaches either ignore the problem and let JSON be defined by the code that generates it, or err too much on the side of using JSON syntax where it&#39;s awkward, that is, in describing other JSON syntax.<br /><br />Initiatives such as the binary frmat Avro that are schema-first may take over where Binary XML and JSON+Schema fail.<br /><br />But even Avro fails in the loosely-coupled front, with the only tool for describing polymorphism being the blunt UNION.<br /><br />A schema language with compact, readable syntax and based on Horn clauses (much like Relax NG) but using JSON or AVRO types would be a good start for describing an interoperable validation language that could apply equally well to many different data serialization formats.<br /><br />Please consider the needs of loosely coupled systems, tightly coupled systems, and validation, when looking at the umbrella of standards around JSON.Leigh Klotzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10067586914711046248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-44711323577962655962013-03-25T07:30:34.264-07:002013-03-25T07:30:34.264-07:00updated blog; not sure why they weren&#39;t part o...updated blog; not sure why they weren&#39;t part of the TAG WebIDL/ECMAScript 6 discussion.Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-50520048930372139062013-03-25T07:12:25.964-07:002013-03-25T07:12:25.964-07:00According to http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison ...According to http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison there are formal W3C/ECMA liaisons, two people on each side. ﻿alsdkfjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15850843730893384331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-27989224393858154292013-01-07T21:09:06.163-08:002013-01-07T21:09:06.163-08:00Reading and understanding the specification, if av...Reading and understanding the specification, if available, is one of the first things any security researcher will do when trying to break software. When testing some implementation of TCP, HTTP, URL, HTML, Shadow DOM or whatever, the spec is the starting point. During security assessments, test cases can be derived directly from those specs, testing the explicit assumptions around security, and also thinking creatively about abuse cases that may not have been imagined. Simple and clearly-written specs help the cause, but you&#39;re right, it&#39;s very much an arms race, especially as releases rot and implementations drift over time. <br /><br />I see security not so much anti-architectural, but more anti-workflow. Security requirements are often seen as speed bumps and greeted with grunts and groans by any but the most pragmatic and security-conscious engineer. Chris Weberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13379556110278063970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-55426756547393680632013-01-04T17:35:52.232-08:002013-01-04T17:35:52.232-08:00+Melvin Carvalho posted a comment to www-tag@w3.or...+Melvin Carvalho posted a comment to www-tag@w3.org<br /><br />http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Jan/0000.html <br />Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-1509325585260969502013-01-03T11:15:49.368-08:002013-01-03T11:15:49.368-08:00The TAG (www-tag@w3.org) got similar comments on &...The TAG (www-tag@w3.org) got similar comments on &quot;Publishing and Linking on the Web&quot; -- we&#39;re going to try to define more of the terms, i think, or at least provide pointers.Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-44919080585355362042013-01-03T09:45:48.202-08:002013-01-03T09:45:48.202-08:00We looked for a while for a good term to talk abou...We looked for a while for a good term to talk about the broad range of controls, and &quot;governance&quot; was the best. At least as we use it, not all governance is in the form of legislative or regulatory acts by governments. Do you have a better word?<br /><br />And our existing laws written to control print publication, physical media distribution, broadcast and telephone communication -- these laws don&#39;t work well and need much creative interpretation when one attempts to apply them to Internet communication. Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-48170068612875433642013-01-03T04:59:23.863-08:002013-01-03T04:59:23.863-08:00Very important document. In order to provide clear...Very important document. In order to provide clear information for non-technical users possible to give more detailed description of terms &quot;request&quot;, &quot;response&quot;, &quot;upload&quot; and show once the neutral &quot;road&quot; - telecommunication link (or the network). Controller - this is the owner+initial transformer, may be this is also possible to underline. Grigori Saghyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10302316428497424642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-77934692881319543462013-01-03T00:37:24.261-08:002013-01-03T00:37:24.261-08:00I think it is a bad idea to use the term &quot;Int...I think it is a bad idea to use the term &quot;Internet governance&quot;, which implies the notion that someone can &quot;control&quot; the Internet.<br />This would entail for instance imposing rules on the ISP on the way they carry traffic or keep logs, block traffic, censor content, share revenues, levy taxes etc.<br />What makes sense for legislation is to care about what people do with the Internet, but this is already the subject of law, since legal responsibility is personal and there are plenty of laws that establish what is legal or not.<br />Your TAG paper indeed explains quite clearly the acts that can be performed on the Web, so that legislators may understand what they talk about, in case they want to.<br />I would not place it though under the title &quot;Internet governance&quot; or &quot;Internet regulations&quot;.Giuseppe Attardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09154205021481216793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-12599769700347369462012-12-31T09:22:14.875-08:002012-12-31T09:22:14.875-08:00&quot;Trying to standardize implementations rather...&quot;Trying to standardize implementations rather than interfaces leads to monoculture (single implementation) or balkanization (multiple incompatible implementations).&quot;<br /><br />Exactly. Architecturally speaking, this is the difference between a library API and a network API, as explained here:<br /><br />http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation.htm#sec_6_5_1<br /><br />Unfortunately, it took me years of studying architecture to understand this; meanwhile, the explosive growth of the Web has wrought a new generation of developers who are, as a group, dismissive of any and all architectural lessons learned before their time.<br /><br />Repeating historical mistakes seems to be the human condition. Although TAG is tasked with avoiding exactly that, I don&#39;t see how a democratic process will lead to any result but relegating those who do grok this architectural nuance to a minority vote.<br /><br />So I expect the pendulum to swing back to library APIs, until such time as the majority re-learns the lessons of the past; at which point I expect the pendulum will swing back to network-based APIs for the Web.<br /><br />That things are bound to get worse before they get better imbues me with feelings of sadness, but not of despair. Once we&#39;ve &quot;rediscovered&quot; the reasons for architectural sanity, we&#39;ll return to sane architecture. For a time, anyway.Eric J. Bowmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-46670160608411440902012-12-31T02:09:22.625-08:002012-12-31T02:09:22.625-08:00Whether the web _could_ become the universal appli...Whether the web _could_ become the universal application platform depends, in no small measure, to how good a job the standards community does in designing a well-architected, modular, scalable, extensible platform. http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/06/orthogonality_of_specification.html<br />I think a lot of current standards design work is short sighted, fighting the old battles of the first browser war or the new multi-billion-dollar IPR wars for control of the mobile platform (iOS, Android, Boot to Gecko, Windows 8)? <br /><br />This is not time for W3C to be a cautious follower, waiting carefully to see which technology will &quot;win&quot;. Perhaps your company or mine might wait cautiously, but it&#39;s time for W3C to lead the web to its full potential, for us to work together to fix the problems that might be of temporary advantage to some of the players but ultimately harm the common good.Larry Masinterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17430215720106687178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418176209892776711.post-22659008118985904942012-12-30T20:13:38.699-08:002012-12-30T20:13:38.699-08:00I wonder if it is a bit early to say the web is be...I wonder if it is a bit early to say the web is becoming the universal application platform. Less than 5 years ago people were saying the web was dead as mobile apps took steam. Desktop widgets were also once an important factor in people accessing the internet. I think before we say something is becoming universal we should wait at least 5 years after it has become dominant (given the popularity of mobile apps I am not sure if the web application is dominant right now).<br /><br />The tricky thing about the latest generation of technology is that the popularity of a technology is as much a function of fads as it is of technological superiority. That is why the W3C must be careful about which technologies they embrace.Randhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14305187318382810105noreply@blogger.com